ART. VIII.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE. ROMAN CATHOLICISM. whether the insertion of a certain comma between two words in the text would THE ROMAN COUNCIL.-On the 24th of make the sense more distinct or not. April the Vatican Council confirmed and When the introduction, and each one of promulgated the first of the dogmatic the chapters, with the accompanying decrees which it has under discussion. canons, had thus been separately passed It is entitled a Dogmatic Decree on on, the entire schema, as a whole, was Catholic Faith. (Constitutio Dogmatica de submitted to the fathers for a more Fide.) The first draft of it was placed solemn and decisive vote in the general in the hands of the Bishops early in congregations held on April 12 and April December. After some weeks of private 19. The vote on this occasion was taken study it was taken up for discussion in by ayes and noes. This was first done the general congregation, held on the in the congregation on the 12th of April 28th of December. At the conclusion in the following manner: The secretary, of the discussion the draft was re- from the pulpit, called the prelates one ferred for emendations to the special after the other, according to their ranks, committee or deputation on matters of and their seniority in their several ranks, faith, to which were also sent full re- naming each one by his ecclesiastical title. ports of all the discourses in the discus- The cardinals presiding were called first, sion. This committee had many meet- the other cardinals next, then the patriings, went over the whole matter two or archs, the primates, the archbishops, the three times, heard the authors of the bishops, the mitred abbots, and the sudraft, divided it into two parts, and periors of the various, religious orders reported back the first part amended, and congregations having solemn vows. containing an introduction and four As each Bishop was called, he rose in chapters, with canons annexed. This his place, bowed to the assembly, and new and revised draft or schema, so voted. The form was placet, if he appresented to the Bishops, was again sub-proved entirely; placet juxta modum, mitted to a renewed discussion and ex- if there were any minor points which he amination-first in general on its plan as was unwilling to approve; or non placet, a whole, and then by parts. The speech- if he disapproved. In the second case, es were very brief, only one of them ex- he handed in a written statement of his ceeding half an hour, and several not opinion and vote on that point, and aslasting more than five minutes. All signed the reasons which moved him to who wished to propose further amend- this special view. The assessors of the ments or changes were required to hand Council received these manuscripts, and them in in writing. When at length delivered them to the presiding legates. the discussion on any special part was As the name of each one was called, if terminated, that portion of the schema, not present, he was marked absent; if and all the proposed amendments, were present, and voting, two or three of the again referred to the committee. The officials, stationed here and there in the amendments were printed, and a few hall, repeated with clear voices the days after, in a general congregation, form of words used by the prelates in the whole matter would come up for a voting, so that all might hear them, and vote. The committee announced which of that no mistake could be committed as to the amendments they had accepted, and any one's vote. The whole procedure briefly stated the reasons for which they occupied about two hours. When it was were unwilling to accept the others. The over, the votes were counted before all, Bishops then voted on each amendment and the result declared. The special singly, unless it were withdrawn by its matter urged in the written and condiauthor by a rising vote. It is said that tional votes were again, and for the last in the discussion of this schema de fide, time, examined by the committee or deputhe majority was on every vote so pre- tation on matters of faith, who reported ponderating that an actual count was not the result of their discussion in the connecessary, and that only once the Bish-gregation of April 19, and the precise ops were nearly evenly divided, the form of words was settled to be decreed, important question happening to be and published in the third public ses sion, which was held on Low Sunday, | ical Council, from the chair of St. Peter, April 26. The above account is abridged from the statement of an American priest, (Father Hecker,) who has himself been called to Rome to participate in the labors of the Council. This writer makes no mention whatever of the grave dissensions which are said to have shown themselves even with regard to this point. Other papers, in particular the famous Roman letters of the "Augsburg Gazette," have given the most minute accounts of these dissensions, in particular of a profound excitement which is said to have been produced by Bishop Strossmayer, the most famous name of the opposition. But though it is certain that these accounts are not entirely groundless, it is. with the information as yet accessible to us, impossible to find out to what extent false rumors may be mixed up with the truth, and this, and many other portions of the Council's secret history, must wait for future disclosures. The official text of the first dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council has already been published. The first impression this document will make upon probably every one outside of the Roman Catholic Church is an astonishment that a meeting of eight hundred and more Bishops should have spent four months in elaborating an essay which many Roman Catholic theologians would have been able to furnish fuliy as good, if not better, in less than a week. It sets out in an introduction with a description of the good results which have flowed from the Council of Trent, and then turns to the evils which have followed the Reformation. The rejection of the authority of the Church has been followed, the decree says, by the principle of subjecting all things belonging to religion to the judgment of each individual. Thus the original heresies have been broken up into many sects, which differed among themselves, and finally all belief in Christ was overthrown in the minds of not a few, and the sacred Scriptures began to be counted among myths and fables. Then arose the doctrines of Rationalism or Naturalism; and at last the minds of many have fallen into the abyss of Pantheism, Materialism, and Atheism. Not a few even of the children of the Roman Catholic Church have wandered from the true path, wherefore the Pope deems it necessary to profess and declare, in common with the Bishops assembled in Ecumen the saving doctrine of Christ. Then follow the four" chapters." Chapter i, of God the Creator of all things; chapter ii, of revelation; chapter iii, of faith; chapter iv, of faith and reason. To these are added eighteen anathemas against certain heretical opinions concerning these new doctrines. The greater part of the chapters treats on subjects on which Romar. Catholics and the Eastern Churches and orthodox Protestant agree against those who deny the Christian revelation; but their common ground is not defined in a manner in any way superior to the many excellent apologetic treatises in which both the Roman Catholic and the Protestant literature abounds. The Roman Catholic laity takes little notice of, and little interest in, such questions; and if the Council had not awaiting its decision some topic of much greater importance, the interest in its progress would soon subside. The But this schema on faith is immediately followed by the great question, and, in fact, almost the only question, which secures to the Council a general interest, that of Papal Infallibility. The interest in this question has considerably increased, both within and without the Roman Catholic Church, during the last three months. In fact, it has secured the attention of the civilized world to an unwonted degree. Almost all religious and secular papers, with many thousands of pamphlets and books, have discussed the question in all its aspects. opinions of the Roman Catholics concerning this question widely differ. A paper, which defends the truth of Papal Infallibility, but doubts the opportuneness of defining it as a dogma, says, that with regard to this question seven parties may be distinguished within the Church. First: Those who regard the belief in Papal Infallibility as a necessity, treat the contrary view as heretical, demand a dogmatical promulgation, and seek to promote the latter by all just and many unjust means. Many writers of the Jesuit order, especially those who write for the chief organ of the Ultramontane party, the Civilta Cattolica of Rome, are counted with this class. Second: Those who desire the promulgation of the doctrine, but who respect all who oppose it up to the time of the dogmatical definition, as good Catholics. The Bishops who have signed the postulatum for the doctrine belong partly to this, partly to the preceding class. Third: Those who personally accept the truth of the doctrine, but deny or doubt the opportuneness of declaring it as an article of faith. It is claimed that the majority of the Bishops who belong to the Opposition of the Council, especially the German, Austrian, and French Bishops, share this view. The fourth class, which comprises the immense majority of the Catholic people, have formed no personal opinion either for or against the doctrine, but confidently leave every thing to the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, who, they believe, will guard the Council from falling into any doctrinal error. The fifth class have thus far been unable to convince themselves of the truth of the Infallibility doctrine, but they are ready to accept submissively and cheerfully any decision of the Council whatever it may be. The sixth comprises those opponents of Infallibility who regard their view as so irrefutable that they would be tempted to doubt the cecumenical character of a Council which should promulgate such a doctrine, and to repudiate its decisions. Döllinger, it is thought, must be put in this class, and with him many of the prominent scholars who have signed congratulatory and sympathetic addresses to him. Lastly, a seventh class goes so far in opposing the Infallibility of the Pope that, indirectly, it throws overboard with it the Infallibility of the Church itself. The famous work of "Janus" on "The Pope and the Council" is considered a representative work of this shade of opinion. pected that if the majority of the Council should persist in obtruding upon the Church a doctrine which they regard as subverting the whole foundation of the Church, they will not submit. In the Council the Infallibilists had, from the beginning, an overwhelming majority. A strong indication of this was given by the composition of the important Commission on Dogmatical Questions, which embraces the name of every Bishop who, by writings, influence, or otherwise, had gained a prominent position in the family of the Infallibilists; in particular, Archbishop Manning, of Westminster; Archbishop Deschamps, of Malines; Archbishop Spalding, of Baltimore; Bishop Martin, of Paderborn; Bishop Pie, of Poitiers; the Armenian Patriarch Hassun, of Constantinople. On the other hand, the minority of anti-Infallibilists is not represented in the Commission by a single member. This party of Infallibilists has been greatly strengthened by the open and very emphatic sympathy of the Pope, who has missed no opportunity to censure the opponents and thank and encourage the defenders of the doctrine. The Roman Catholic papers have mentioned many facts of this kind. The author of almost every work in favor of Infallibility has received from the Pope a congratulatory letter, and at the audiences given to Bishops the Pope rarely misses the opportunity to declare it as his opinion that the present state of the Church requires the promulgation of the doctrine. But overwhelming as was the majority of the Bishops who favored the InfallibilTo complete this picture, the writer ity doctrine, and emphatic as was the should, however, have added, that both support given to them by the Pope, many in the New and in the Old Worlds many were surprised at the large number of millions are only nominally connected Bishops who openly declared their diswith the Church, and care as little about sent. Of these, only a few had made the Infallibility of the Church as that of known their opinion before the meeting the Council. It is, in particular, note- of the Council-foremost among them worthy, that most of the men who in the veteran champion of Church interests France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and in France, Bishop Dupanloup, of Orleans. other countries, have been noted as the Most declared themselves for the first leaders of the Catholic party in politics time after their arrival in Rome. At the have shown themselves as earnest oppo- first, most of the Bishops of the Opposinents of the doctrine of Infallibility. As tion confined themselves to urging the inregards theological scholars and promi- opportuneness of declaring Papal Infallinent members of the priesthood, it can- bility as a doctrine; but as this failed to not for a moment be doubted, that the make the least impression on the majormen who have achieved the greatest lit-ity, arguments against the doctrine inerary reputation are almost unanimous in a very decided rejection of the proposed doctrine. They fully sustain the position of Dullinger, and it is still ex self have been urged with considerable force. The learned historian of the Council, Bishop Hefele, of Rottenburg, has published a pamphlet on the case of Pope Honorius, who was declared a heretic by an Ecumenical Council; other pamphlets against the doctrine have been published by Cardinals Rauscher and Schwarzenberg; the Archbishops of St. Louis and Cincinnati have referred to the case of the English Pope Hadrian, who not only gave Ireland to the King of England, but claimed for the Roman Pontiffs the authority to make such donations whenever they pleased. As it takes some time for many of the most important facts connected with this question to become known, we shall, in course of time, learn more of what is now going on in Rome. An important feature in the history of the Infallibility question is the unanimous opposition of all the governments of the Catholic States. France, Austria, Portugal, Spain, Bavaria, and others, have instructed their ministers in Rome to enter an earnest protest against a doctrine which could compel all members of the Roman Catholic Church to believe in the right of the Pope to depose Kings and release their subjects from the oath of allegiance. It is certain that not a single constitutional government in all Europe will dare to recognize the Infallibility of the Pope, even if the Council should declare it a doctrine of the Church. Thus all those governments will, in the eyes of the Church, become heretical, which may lead to a complete separation between Church and State in all Catholic countries. Bulgarians with regard to their future. When the Bulgarians, in the ninth century, under King Bogaris, became Christians, the new missionary Church was placed under the supervision of the Greek Patriarch. About fifty years later King Samuel established both the political independence of the Bulgarian nation and the ecclesiastical independence of the Bulgarian Church. But after his death, the Church was again placed under the Greek Patriarch, and did not regain the enjoyment of ecclesiastical independence till the latter part of the twelfth century. After the conquest of the country by the Turks, in 1393, many of the Bulgarians for a while became, outwardly, Mohammedans; but, as religious freedom increased, returned to their earlier faith, and the Bulgarian Church was made an appendage to that of Constantinople. Good feeling prevailed then between the Greeks and the Bulgarians, and the Sultan filled the Bulgarian Sees with Greek prelates, who were acceptable to the people. As the Bulgarian nobility was exterminated, and the people oppressed by wars which followed, there was, until the beginning of the present century, scarcely a single voice raised against the foreign Episcopate. But the national feeling began to assert itself about fifty years ago, and the Greek Patriarch was compelled to authorize several reforms. Abuses continued, however, and the national feeling increased, so that the Patriarch was obliged, in 1848, to approve the erection of a Bulgarian Church, and THE EASTERN CHURCH-THE BULGA- of a school for the education of priests, RIAN QUESTION.-Among the most im- in the capital. The demand of the Bulportant questions which have agitated garians for a restoration of their nationthe Eastern Churches since the begin- ality, in 1856, again aroused the slumning of the present century is the re-bering zeal of the Greeks, and the differconstruction of a national Bulgarian ences between the two nationalities have Church, which is to remain united with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other parts of the Greek Church in point of doctrine, but to maintain an entire independence in point of administration. This question has obtained a political, as well as an ecclesiastical, importance, as Russia, France, and other European powers have tried to make capital out of it. A decree of the Turkish Government, issued in February, 1870, appears to decide the main point which was at issue. As important results may follow this decision, a brief history of the Bulgarian question will aid in a proper understanding of the situation it now occupies, and of the hopes that are entertained by the continued very active up to the present time. The Porte, in 1862, named a mixed commission, to investigate and settle the difficulties. It proposed two plans of adjustment. According to one of these plans, the Bulgarian Church was to name the Bishops of those districts in which the Bulgarian population is in a majority. The other plan accorded to the Bulgarians the right to have a Metropolitan in every province, and a Bishop in every diocese, where there is a strong Bulgarian population. Both plans were rejected, and the Turkish Government, having been to considerable pains for nothing, left the contending parties to settle the controversy in their own way. Accordingly the Greek Patriarch, in 1869, proposed a General Council, and solicited the different Churches of the Greek Confession for their opinions and advice on the subject. Greece, Roumania, and Servia declared themselves in favor of the Council. On the other hand, the Holy Synod of Petersburgh, for the Russian Church, declared the claims of the Bulgarians to be excessive, and that, although considered a Council the only lawful means of settling the points at issue, it feared a schism if the demands of the Bulgarians were complied with, and was further afraid that the fulfillments of the demands of the canons would be refused, and advised the continuance of the status quo. The Greek Patriarch, being unwilling to solve the question, the Turkish Government took the matter into its own hands, and in February, 1870, issued a decree which establishes a Bulgarian Exarch, to whom are subordinate thirteen Bulgarian Bishops, whose number may be increased whenever it may be found necessary. The Turkish Government has tried to spare the sensibility of the Greeks as much as possible, and has, therefore, not only withheld from the head of the Bulgarian Church the title of Patriarch, but has expressly provided that the Exarch should remain subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Nevertheless the Patriarch has entered his solemn and earnest protest against the scheme. His note to the Grand Vizier, which is signed by all the members of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, is an important document in the history of the Greek Church, and reads as follows: (whose strength may be invincible,) have always drawn a marked boundary-line between civil and ecclesiastical authority; they recognized the rights, privileges, and immunities of the latter, and guaran permitted any one to commit an encroachteed it by Hatti-Humayums. They never ment upon the original rights of the Church, which, during five centuries, was under the immediate protection of the Imperial throne. Your Highness: If the said firman had been nothing but the sanction of a Concordat between the Patriarchate and the Bulgarians, we should things are different. Since the firman respect and accept it. Unfortunately, decides ecclesiastical questions, and since the decision is contrary to the canons, and vitally wounds the rights and privileges of the Holy See, the Patriarchate Imperial Government. Your Highness: cannot accept the ultimatum of the Since the Bulgarians obstinately shut their ears to the voice of that reconciliation which we aim at, and since the Imperial Government is not compelled to solve an ecclesiastical question in an irrevocable manner; since, finally, the ab. normal position of affairs violates and disturbs ancient rights, the Ecumenical Imperial Government may allow the conPatriarchate renews the prayer, that the vocation of an Ecumenical Council, which alone is authorized to solve this question in a manner legally valid and binding for both parties. Moreover, we beseech the Imperial Government that it may take the necessary steps which are calculated to put an end to the disorder and which can chiefly be traced to the which disturbs the quiet within our flock, circulars of the Heads of the Bulgarians, (dated the 15th of the present month.) The Ecumenical Patriarchate enters its protest with the Imperial Government against the creation of these disturbances. Written and done in our Patriarchal residence, Mar. 24, (old style,) 1870. (Signed) GREGORY CONSTANTINE, Patriarch. (Signed) All the members of the Holy Synod. To His Highness the Grand Vizier:Your Highness was pleased to communicate to the Patriarchate, through Messrs Christaki, Efendi, Sagraphras, and The note of the Patriarch and his SynKara-Theodor, the Imperial firman, writ- od indicates that they are aware that, ten upon parchment, which solves the sooner or later, the national demands of Bulgarian question, after it had been open the Bulgarians must be granted; and during ten years. The Patriarchate, always faithfully fulfilling its duties toward the Emperor, whom the Lord God has given to the nations, has at all times remained foreign to any thought that the decrees of the Sublime Sovereign in political questions should not be obeyed. The Oriental Church obeyed with cheerfulness and respect the legitimate Sovereigns. The latter, on their part, have always respected the province which belongs to the ecclesiastical administration. The Sultans, of glorious memory, as well as their present fame-crowned successor, their chief concern now is, to obtain as large concessions for the supremacy of the Patriarchal See as is possible. A peaceable and a speedy solution of the difference is the more urgent, as during the last ten years the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Turkey, aided by the diplomatic agents of the French Government, have made the most strennous efforts to gain a foothold among the Bulgarians, and to establish a United Bulgarian Church. Nor have these efforts |
